Free-response ROC (FROC) data are typically collected when primary question of interest is focused on the proportions of the correct detection-localization of known targets and frequencies of false positive responses, which can be multiple per subject (image). These studies are particularly relevant for CAD and related applications. The fundamental tool of the location-level FROC analysis is the FROC curve. Although there are many methods of FROC analysis, as we describe in this work, some of the standard and popular approaches, while important, are not suitable for analyzing specifically the location-level FROC performance as summarized by the FROC curve. Analysis of the FROC curve, on the other hand, might not be straightforward. Recently we developed an approach for the location-level analysis of the FROC data using the well-known tools for clustered ROC analysis. In the current work, based on previously developed concepts, and using specific examples, we demonstrate the key reasons why specifically location-level FROC performance cannot be fully addressed by the common approaches as well as illustrate the proposed solution. Specifically, we consider the two most salient FROC approaches, namely JAFROC and the area under the exponentially transformed FROC curve (AFE) and show that clearly superior FROC curves can have lower values for these indices. We describe the specific features that make these approaches inconsistent with FROC curves. This work illustrates some caveats for using the common approaches for location-level FROC analysis and provides guidelines for the appropriate assessment or comparison of FROC systems.